Posts

Dorsey: To Judicially Review or not to Judicially Review, That is the Question

In Dorsey v Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada marks not only an important victory for inmates in federal correctional facilities but also a step forward in the application of access to justice arguments in administrative law. As the decision underscores, Dorsey will play an important role in shaping both habeas corpus case law and assessing the degree of access to justice in complex administrative regimes.

What Remains of Section 28 After the QCCA’s Bill 21 Decision?

The Quebec Court of Appeal’s (“QCCA”) decision in Organisation mondiale sikhe du Canada c. Procureur général du Québec brings forward a constitutional question the Supreme Court of Canada will soon have to address directly: does section 28 of the Charter possess any independent legal force, or can its equality guarantee be displaced entirely through a section 33 declaration? The result of that decision is stark: the QCCA treats section 28 as having no independent force, no interpretive weight, and no residual function once the rights it echoes are suspended.

No Material Change in Ambiguity: The SCC’s Decision in Lundin

When is a public company required to disclose new information to the public? The answer to this question is far from clear, and the ambiguity that lies at its core plagues securities lawyers who are tasked with advising clients on corporate disclosures. In light of this ambiguity, the Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) highly anticipated decision in Lundin Mining Corp v Markowich was expected to provide some clarity to the question of when to disclose information relating to a company’s affairs. This clarity, however, remains elusive.

Trial Fitness Clarified: The SCC’s Approach in R v Bharwani

When the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in R v Bharwani, it represented the first instance in over three decades that the highest court had the opportunity to interpret section 2 of the Criminal Code, since Parliament established the statutory definition for “unfit to stand trial” in 1991. Canadian mental disorder jurisprudence has come a long way in the previous three decades, but fitness—an issue central to the accused’s autonomy, trial fairness, and the “Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder” regime—remains largely governed by Taylor, an integral, but pre-Charter-evolution decision.

Fresh Starts and Student Loans: Assessing the Supreme Court’s Approach in Piekut

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Piekut v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 13 (“Piekut”) resolves a long-standing dispute over when student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy. At issue was whether the seven-year waiting period in s. 178(1)(g)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) runs from any cessation of studies or only from […]

Reasonable Findings, Questionable Remedies: the SCC on Remitting Matters on Judicial Review in Pepa

The Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 reveals fault lines in the current approach to granting remedies on judicial review. The resulting uncertainty risks undermining the principle of predictability in the administrative state. In short, Pepa has significant consequences for administrative decision-makers and applicants seeking judicial review, particularly with respect to statutory interpretation.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Use of Compelled Accident Statements in Korduner

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Korduner, a split decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal that examines the extent of use immunity for statutorily compelled statements. In particular, the SCC may wish to examine whether a statement given by a motorist who has an honest and reasonably held belief that they are statutorily compelled can be used as the reasonable grounds necessary to compel an evidentiary breath test pursuant to s.320.28 of the Criminal Code.

Pandemic Pressures and Procedural Justice: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Approach in R v Varennes

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. Varennes 2025 SCC 22 ("Varennes") highlights the tension between prosecutorial discretion, judicial oversight, and the protection of Charter rights under extraordinary circumstances. Varennes addresses whether a trial judge can order a judge-alone trial over the Crown’s objection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCC’s reasoning navigates […]

R v Kloubakov : Post-Bedford Sex Trade Offences Withstand Constitutional Scrutiny

In R v Kloubakov, 2025 SCC 25, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that offences directed toward regulating the sex industry can withstand constitutional scrutiny as long as they are carefully drafted to target exploitation of sex workers, rather than sex workers themselves.

Van Breda Revisited: the SCC on Jurisdiction Simpliciter in Sinclair

This summer, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority clarified how to determine a court’s jurisdiction simpliciter. This case has significant implications for businesses offering services to Canadians abroad.